4.6 Article

Cognitive functioning in patients maintained on buprenorphine at peak and trough buprenorphine levels: An experimental study

期刊

ASIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajp.2021.102697

关键词

Opioid dependence; Neurocognitive performance; Cognitive impairment; Memory; Buprenorphine treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the cognitive functions in participants maintained on buprenorphine for opioid dependence at peak and trough buprenorphine levels. The results indicated significant differences between peak and trough groups in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, suggesting that the time since buprenorphine dose has a significant impact on specific cognitive tasks in patients maintained on buprenorphine for opioid dependence.
Objectives: To assess the cognitive functions in participants maintained on buprenorphine for opioid dependence at peak and trough buprenorphine levels. Methods: This was a double-blind, randomized, experimental study. Sixty participants maintained on buprenorphine were matched for age and education and randomly allocated to peak group or trough group. The peak group received buprenorphine two hours before assessment, whereas the trough group received placebo. The cognitive domains of attention, learning and memory, and executive function including fluency, working memory, response inhibition and set shifting were tested. Results: The two groups were comparable on socio-demographic, substance use profile and opioid agonist treatment-related characteristics. Significant differences in performance of peak and trough group were observed on Wisconsin Card Sorting Test parameters of number of correct responses (U = 289.00, p = 0.03), number of errors (t = 02.26, df = 58, p = 0.03), and perseverative errors (U = 301.50, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The time since buprenorphine dose has significant relation on specific cognitive tasks in patients maintained on buprenorphine for opioid dependence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据